Store

Everything posted by NJCubScouter

If you are equating dispensing condoms to a minor to having sex with a minor, I think we have identified the problem right there.
If you walk into any drug store in New Jersey, the condoms are on a rack right out there in the open, unlike "restricted products" such as cigarettes, which are behind the counter, unless it is one of the chains that have stopped selling tobacco products anyway. And unlike cold medicines with pseudoephedrine (a.k.a the kind the actually work), which are not only behind the pharmacy counter, but you have to sign your name on the credit card machine so that if it turns out that you are buying the maximum number of boxes at every drug store in the area, the police can come knocking down the door of your house looking for the meth lab.

I am not sure whether there was an actual lawsuit or not, and whether it actually reached a conclusion. I think that when directly confronted with the issue (however that was accomplished), both the government and the BSA realized that the government was not going to win in court with the argument that the government can provide significant free services to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion (i.e exclusion of atheists.) The BSA is legally able to exclude atheists from receiving its services. The government is not.

Making items available to deal with a situation that you know is going to occur, does not amount to endorsing, condoning or allowing sexual activity at Scouting events. Maybe the condoms they hand out should have wrappers that say, "Don't use this until you get home, and (assuming you are of the proper age) get married, and even then, only if the precepts of your religion permit." Then everybody's conscience can be clear.

I can relate to that personally. And yes, his belief that "there was likely a higher power of some sort that he could not fully define" does meet BSA requirements for leaders, perhaps just barely, but it does.

You are correct, I don't know and it isn't any of my business. In fact, if I had not at that point changed the subject to something else (how about those Yankees?), the next thing out of his mouth probably would have been "It's none of your business."

Interesting how you can extrapolate a conclusion about large groups of people from what I say about TWO people (my daughter and my other daughter's husband), neither of whom you know, and about whom you know only the very small amount of information I have provided. Here's a little bit more, in about four months my daughter who has the step-daughter is going to have a daughter of her own, and the demographic statistics would suggest that she is going to grow up to be one of nasty progressive liberals too.

And presumably he knows that, and has apparently decided that his granddaughter would be better off in the BSA than the GSUSA.
I have a step-granddaughter who is of Cub Scout age and I have mentioned to my son-in-law (the girl's father) that she is (or soon will be) eligible to join the Cub Scouts, but his reply was basically that he is an atheist and is not interested in having his daughter in an organization that would not have him as a member. He doesn't seem very interested in having her being a Girl Scout either. I think it's kind of a shame, but she is not my child, nor my child's child, for that matter. (I do have a grandson living 3,000 miles away from me, whose mother apparently still has not forgiven the BSA for banning gay people, even though they don't anymore. I do still have hope for having a grandchild(ren) in Scouting through my son the Eagle Scout, who is married but is showing no signs of rushing into parenthood.)

After two weeks maybe, as David says. But if its a two-day camping trip, losing 10% of your body weight sounds like a problem, no matter how overweight you are. Even over two weeks, it's probably not a great idea.

Actually, I think I would rather hear that one. Someone(s) might be getting kicked out of the troop (or not), but at least everyone is going home in one piece. I have sometimes half-jokingly said that the main role of the adult leaders on a camping trip is to make sure that when we arrive back at the church parking lot on Sunday, we have the same number of kids as when we left.

Reminds me of the tv commercial that's out now for a low-cost life insurance company. The guy is wrapped in bubble-wrap and explains that he is wrapped in bubble wrap because he can't afford life insurance. It is somewhat funnier the way he says it than how I am describing it.

As I (and others) said in this forum while the gay-exclusion policy was in effect, the BSA was not really acting in a non-denominational way by having that policy. It was enforcing the beliefs of some religions, denominations, etc. over the anti-discriminatory beliefs of others.
I also don't think the exclusion of atheists is a "moral policy," meaning that I don't think it is compelled by moral principles. I know people who profess a belief in God, who are not very moral people, and people who are atheists who I consider to be very moral people. And if you look at atheism as a religious belief (in the sense that it is a belief about religion), then the BSA isn't acting non-denominationally in excluding them, anyway. (And I am not necessarily saying that policy should be changed. I would actually be ok either way.)

I have been copying parents on emails since before it became a rule in the BSA. I was a "mentor" for my son's high school robotics team (in non-technical areas) and I found myself writing an email to the captain of one of the sub-teams that I was assisting, and it occurred to me, Hey, you are writing to a 16- or 17-year-old girl, and flashing lights, bells and sirens started going off in my head. So I decided to cc one of her parents, and luckily I had the parents' email from some team-wide email. Then I decided, why not do that for every student, and later, every Boy Scout (such as in merit badge counseling.). It makes things cumbersome sometimes but I think it's the smart thing to do. (And now the BSA requires it.)

I realize this is somewhat of a tangent, but I just asked the Internet what "pantheism" is, and I don't think there would be any justification in denying Eagle to someone on the basis that he or she is a "pantheist." The BSA requires a belief in a higher power and that you do your duty to that higher power. Pantheism has a higher power, even though it doesn't "look like" the deity of most of the major religions.

I guess it would be interesting to find out what kind of National recognition was given to Arthur Eldred in 1912. His Wikipedia page says the approval of his application came in a personal letter from James E. West, and they had to delay the award of his Eagle medal because they were still designing it, so it seems there was at least some measure of extra hoopla for the first MALE Eagle Scout.

But now that I think about it, if a hypothetical person (let's call him TampaTurtle) is having thoughts that are "impure" enough to violate A Scout is Clean, it wouldn't matter whether he is married or not, whereas Trustworthy and Loyal (and Obedient) only kick in if you are married.